PDA

View Full Version : Do Germans Produce Better Guns?



sfbaytf
03-07-2004, 08:40 PM
The 30mm cannons on the ME262 and ME163 are devestating. A B-17 can't take more than a few hits and 1 or 2 seem to be able to bring down any fighter.

When I think of guns the Germans come to mind as producing most of the real good ones-88mm, 75mm on the Panther, MG-42, the first mass produced assault rifle, 30mm on fighters. Even today their G3 is highly regarded and their MP-5 is the standard of many police and special forces units. The only type they didn't seem to get right in WW2 was a semi-auto rifle like the M-1.

sfbaytf
03-07-2004, 08:40 PM
The 30mm cannons on the ME262 and ME163 are devestating. A B-17 can't take more than a few hits and 1 or 2 seem to be able to bring down any fighter.

When I think of guns the Germans come to mind as producing most of the real good ones-88mm, 75mm on the Panther, MG-42, the first mass produced assault rifle, 30mm on fighters. Even today their G3 is highly regarded and their MP-5 is the standard of many police and special forces units. The only type they didn't seem to get right in WW2 was a semi-auto rifle like the M-1.

Glassess
03-07-2004, 08:42 PM
Those Germans they have the war gene you know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

sfbaytf
03-07-2004, 08:46 PM
Must be the genes...speaking of war genes here in the states Hells Battlefields is now showing on the History Channel. D-DAY, Battle of the Bulge and Kursk are playing and guess who plays a leading role in all 3?

Come 9:00 I'll have to decide between Kursk and the premier of the Sapranos.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glassess:
Those Germans they have the war gene you know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mitlov47
03-07-2004, 08:57 PM
Do Germans produce better guns? No, they don't.

The G3 rifle may be highly regarded, but certainly no more so than the trusty old M-14. Fifty years after WWII, American Special Forces still frequently use the M-14 (that Delta sniper in Black Hawk Down is just one example).

There's this cult of people out there who believe that any German implement of war is automatically superior to every competitor on the market, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that there's substance to that allegation.

Certainly, some German equipment is excellent. The HK MP5 and HK USP are two examples. However, there are plenty of arms made in other countries that are also awesome--look at the worldwide popularity of the F-16 fighter or the AK-47 assault rifle. Does this mean that "Americans make better planes than everyone else" or "Russians make better rifles than everyone else?" No.

As for your in-game examples--have you tried pounding on bombers with the American P-39 or the Russian-made Yak-9K? Large-caliber cannons splinter airframes. Period. Regardless of the country of origin.

---------------------------

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

KI-84-1a -- "Kaoru"

HangerQueen
03-07-2004, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glassess:
Those Germans they have the war gene you know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Shhh! Don't....mention....the....war!

Actually the Russians produced some excellent aircraft weapons; the UBS heavy machine gun, VYa and B20 cannons spring to mind.

"You can try, but it is a difficult and thankless task to compare the combat qualities of aircraft using reference book data. There are simply too many nuances to consider." N. G. Golodnikov

Friendly_flyer
03-07-2004, 11:45 PM
Germans don't automatically produce superior guns/planes/whatever, but Germany was (and is) a country with a generally high mechanical expertise in the population, and a fairly disciplined work force. That translates into sound designs and a generally good standard of manufacture. In the cases where German equipment stands out, the competing equipment usually suffers from bad design, bad material or bad manufacturing.

I used a Norwegian-made G3 in the army. I can vouch very much for the mechanical soundness of the German design, but the fairly good Norwegian manufacture was important too. That the M-14 is good should come as no surprise. It's basically a Garand SLG with a magazine, a well tried and tested design, made with superior materials and wartime manufacturing experiences from WWII. The failings of the M-16 can be tracked to lack of practical experience with a design made in peace-time and a discontinuation of the gun-making experience from WWII. Now, with its childhood difficulties ironed out, the M-16 has become a sturdy gun (though I don't care much for the calibre).

Fly friendly!

Petter B¸ckman
Norway

Keravnos
03-08-2004, 12:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Germans don't automatically produce superior guns/planes/whatever, but Germany was (and is) a country with a generally high mechanical expertise in the population, and a fairly disciplined work force. That translates into sound designs and a generally good standard of manufacture. In the cases where German equipment stands out, the competing equipment usually suffers from bad design, bad material or bad manufacturing.

I used a Norwegian-made G3 in the army. I can vouch very much for the mechanical soundness of the German design, but the fairly good Norwegian manufacture was important too. That the M-14 is good should come as no surprise. It's basically a Garand SLG with a magazine, a well tried and tested design, made with superior materials and wartime manufacturing experiences from WWII. The failings of the M-16 can be tracked to lack of practical experience with a design made in peace-time and a discontinuation of the gun-making experience from WWII. Now, with its childhood difficulties ironed out, the M-16 has become a sturdy gun (though I don't care much for the calibre).

_Fly friendly!_

_Petter B¸ckman
Norway_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must agree with everything the above poster said. I, myself have used a Greek made G3, and can vouch for its reliability and good-enough accuracy. As I was an AA gunner, I was only TOO aware of the German perfection. My own gun a RH-202 Rheinmetall 20mm calliber gun, I must say I still am amazed at that thing. 100 degrees/sec left-right,55 degrees/sec up-down amazing work with EVERYTHING you could think of - you could tweak just about everything, designate a safe zone (aka a zone that you couldn't fire on even if you tried) - it was able to be used in both fully automatic and no-electricity mode to the one mode that was NEVER used in Greece (The arctic setting we called it - when temperature would fall below -20... Wonder why they did that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). Serving and maintaining it was a female dog though...

Menthol_moose
03-08-2004, 12:53 AM
The MG42 and Flak 88 were both excellent guns.

Of course the MP44 was a groundbreaking design.

Wirbelwind was a great design too.

But to say "germans produced better guns" is a bit much of a generalisation.



Eh, mates! What's the good word?

Menthol_moose
03-08-2004, 02:01 AM
a bit OT, but they found these in one of saddam's palaces.

Not bad for a 60 year old gun !

http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Rifles/George%20firing%20MP44%20blacked%20out.jpg

http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Rifles/M98%20und%20MP44%20mit%20Patr%20Named.jpg



Eh, mates! What's the good word?

GR142_Astro
03-08-2004, 02:42 AM
The main gun on the US Abrams tank is of German manufacture. Can't be bad.

____________________________

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limosine anyway." ~TheClash~

Destraex
03-08-2004, 02:57 AM
Germans did make good equipment but I agree that that other countries in ww2 did make some awesome weapons.

Take the;

30 cal
50 cal
lee enfield
Bren Gun
17 pounder
Thompson
Springfield
Soumi SMG (German scouts used to swap their mp40s for these)
Vickers
colt .45

One thing you have to admire about the German arsenals in ww2 was the amazing amount of OVER-complicated and experimental gear. In the midst of this was ground breaking stuff gotta admit though

I mean the Germans were using Infra-Red HTs at night to paint Targets for Panthers with infra red vision in WW2!!! Thats amazing

PlaneEater
03-08-2004, 04:10 AM
Bah... Detusch, smetusch.

JOHN BROWNING makes good weapons. Consider this: The 'colt .45' is actually the M1911. That's right. It's been around for 93 years, and it's STILL being manufactured everyday in a more or less identical form.

And the M2 .50 cal: also known as the Universal Fifty. That weapon carved its own gray zone between heavy machine guns and cannons. It was in service by the end of WWI and it's still used--officially, not counting paramilitary or guerrila use--by more than 70 nations today. The only changes in the last 80+ years have been because of advances in metallurgy that allowed for weight reductions.

Yeah, the MG42 was impressive, but if it was so good, why didn't we just copy it and rechamber it for 5.56 or 7.62 and use it today?

Menthol_moose
03-08-2004, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlaneEater:
Bah... Detusch, smetusch.

Yeah, the MG42 was impressive, but if it was so good, why didn't we just copy it and rechamber it for 5.56 or 7.62 and use it today?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did.

The MG3 is the latest rheinmetall version of the MG42, made for the 7.62 round. It still remains one of the best and most feared MGs in the world today.

http://www.ghostrecon.net/images_arms/mg3_large_1.jpg

"The MG-42 is one of the great guns. Designed and produced during W.W.II when the Nazi war machine was at its apex, the MG-42 used the same new manufacturing techniques introduced with the MP-40. Where previous guns had been painstakingly machined from bars and forging, using interlocking parts assembled with screws, pins, or rivets, most of the MG-42 was pressed, folded, induction welded steel. Most of the precision in the gun is in the bolt and barrel extension.
In addition to manufacturing breakthroughs the MG-42 has another feature which makes one of the most famous and feared guns ever built: a rate of fire over 1000 rounds per minute. This out of a gun that can be carried and shot by one or two men. Fewer troops were needed to lay down suppressing fire while others maneuvered. There is no gun that sounds, or shoots like an MG-42. A 50 round belt disappears in a few seconds.

The MG-42 has a legitimate, simple, quick barrel change. The feed cover design is used in several modern weapons. The gun is still made and used, virtually unaltered by Germany as the MG3. For many years after the war, the MG-42 was made by Yugoslavia as the MG-42/56.
"

[This message was edited by Menthol_moose on Mon March 08 2004 at 03:40 AM.]

The_Red_Spoon
03-08-2004, 04:28 AM
Germany does have considerable expertise in guns & cannons etc. (Rheinmettal AG and HK equipment is used all over the world). However, other countries (such as the US) could specialize if they wanted to; it just doesn't make economic sense when there are better off-the-shelf designs available elsewhere (such as the Italian M9 Beretta)

As far as WWII is concerned, the real German ubergun is the 88.

Gershy
03-08-2004, 05:25 AM
You shouldn't forget the STG77 and the Glock if you're talking about weapons. The German guns and the M14 are nothing compared to that thing.

JG46_Max
03-08-2004, 05:53 AM
uh, but isnt glock an austrian design? please dont mix up austrians with germans, they both dont like that very much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gershy
03-08-2004, 05:58 AM
both are Austrian designs and so am I :P

http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/images/stg77.jpg

FliegerAas
03-08-2004, 06:48 AM
Yeah, the Steyr AUG (or STG77 for "Sturmgewehr 77") is a great gun. I used it in the army.

@PlaneEater:Modified versions of the MG42 ARE still in use (although they have other names http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

Online unterwegs als "Hundsbube"
http://www.metalforum-austria.net/vbb/attachment.php?s=&postid=15243

LuckyBoy1
03-08-2004, 06:50 AM
Whether the Krauts made good guns or not didn't matter as much as their understanding of mobile, machine gun supported units. They didn't just make good guns, they were willing to use them effectively!

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

Gershy
03-08-2004, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlaneEater:
Bah... Detusch, smetusch.

JOHN BROWNING makes good weapons. Consider this: The 'colt .45' is actually the M1911. That's right. It's been around for 93 years, and it's STILL being manufactured everyday in a more or less identical form.

And the M2 .50 cal: also known as the Universal Fifty. That weapon carved its own gray zone between heavy machine guns and cannons. It was in service by the end of WWI and it's still used--officially, not counting paramilitary or guerrila use--by more than 70 nations today. The only changes in the last 80+ years have been because of advances in metallurgy that allowed for weight reductions.

Yeah, the MG42 was impressive, but if it was so good, why didn't we just copy it and rechamber it for 5.56 or 7.62 and use it today?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The German army and the Austrian army use midified versions of the MG42 as far as I know the Yugoslavians and Italians as well.. the MG used by the US is based on the MG42 as well btw.
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/images/mg74.jpg

@FliegerAas: jaja das gute alte STG77, wer hat das noch nicht stundenlang durch den Wald geschleppt? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oak_Groove
03-08-2004, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlaneEater:
Yeah, the MG42 was impressive, but if it was so good, why didn't we just copy it and rechamber it for 5.56 or 7.62 and use it today?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that the U.S. industry didn´t try at that time... There was a program to rechamber captured MG-42´s to 30-06 caliber, which more or less resulted in failure. As the U.S. armed forces were in need of a new machine gun ( lessons learned), this led to the introduction of the M-60, which borrowed some design concepts from the MG-42 and FG-42. The M-60 however wasn´t as serviceable and reliable, while having a comparatively low rate of fire.

XP2500 OC'ed 11x200
768MB TWINMOS DDR 400 3-3-2.5-11
A7N8X-D Rev. 2.0/Bios 1.7
SAPPHIRE R9700 Atlantis
2 x IBM IC35040 40GB
Syncmaster 957P
Win XP Pro SP1
DirectX 9.0b
nForce UDP 2.45 w/3.75 Audio
Catalyst 3.7

Blutarski2004
03-08-2004, 09:53 AM
German weapon designs were excellent, although pre-war work was often technically complex and over-engineered (not a fault exclusive to Germany alone). German weapons also enjoyed the advantage of superior propellants produced by the German chemical industry, which has enjoyed a well deserved reputation for excellence in that field. German projectile and fuze designs were also world class, particularly in the anti-tank arena. And German optical sighting devices were without peer. All these factors taken together created the fine reputation enjoyed by German arms.

Someone asked why the MG42 design was not copied by the US. The attempt was in fact made and at least one physical test prototype chambered in 30-06 was manufactured. This took place during the war, which was quite unusual. Attempts to copy enemy weapon systems during hostilities are rare. However, as I understand the history, some sort of slight error was made in the conversion from metric to Imperial (Ft-in) measurement standards coupled with the adaptation ofthe wepaon to 30-06 cartridge dimensions. This resulted in a slightly too short cartridge chamber which caused repeated jams and ultimately convinced the authorities to abandon the project.

It is interesting to note that the MG42 design did NOT originate with any of the great traditional German weapon manufacturing firms. It was conceived by a small engineering firm which IIRC had had no previous experience in weapon manufacture. Quite remarkable really. I guess that starting with a "clean sheet of paper" and no traditional pre-conceptions and biases can sometimes lead to unexpected leaps in design.

I, however, also personally appreciate the Russian/Soviet approach to weapon design, which took into account the anticipated battlefield life expectancy of the weapon in question and pressed its performance to the point where the useful life of the weapons approximated its life expectancy. It was a very practical and economical design approach.

BLUTARSKI

sfbaytf
03-08-2004, 10:38 AM
Regarding the MG-42. I remember reading somewhere the US Army was interested in producing a machince gun based on the MG-42, but the original engineering design plans were destroyed by the Germans and they had to reverse engineer the design and the result was the M-60.

The Germans have a reputation of producing fearsome weapons, but in perspective they have been on the loosing end of wars so it goes to show that the side with the better toys don't always win.

sfbaytf
03-08-2004, 10:43 AM
Sweet...I remember in the 70's when I lived in Hawaii the police had a turn your gun in no questions asked day. Someone turned in the same gun a MP44. A picture showing a cop holding the turned in gun was in the newspaper.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Menthol_moose:
a bit OT, but they found these in one of saddam's palaces.

Not bad for a 60 year old gun !

http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Rifles/George%20firing%20MP44%20blacked%20out.jpg

http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Rifles/M98%20und%20MP44%20mit%20Patr%20Named.jpg



Eh, mates! What's the good word?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JV44Rall
03-08-2004, 11:01 AM
"German weapon designs were excellent, although pre-war work was often technically complex and over-engineered (not a fault exclusive to Germany alone)."

This is slightly OT, but a good illustration. Not long ago, I purchased a piece of equipment on eBay that was advertised as "Army surplus." When I received it, I was blown away by the finish on the wood, the perfect welds, quantity of machined parts and quality of the fasteners, which were typically brass screws going through threaded metal parts into grommets, crimped washers and locking brass nuts.

Looking closely, I found a tiny Wehrmacht eagle and swastika stamped into the metal base and obscured by green paint that the seller obviously overlooked.

This marvelous piece of equipment and design wonder wasn't a gun or weapon - it was a surveyor's tripod!

Talk about technically complex and over-engineered! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

pcisbest
03-08-2004, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sfbaytf:
The 30mm cannons on the ME262 and ME163 are devestating. A B-17 can't take more than a few hits and 1 or 2 seem to be able to bring down any fighter.

When I think of guns the Germans come to mind as producing most of the real good ones-88mm, 75mm on the Panther, MG-42, the first mass produced assault rifle, 30mm on fighters. Even today their G3 is highly regarded and their MP-5 is the standard of many police and special forces units. The only type they didn't seem to get right in WW2 was a semi-auto rifle like the M-1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the Germans DID develop a semi-auto battle rifle, its called the Gewehr 43 or G43, you dont see them too often but there are a few pictures (cant remember where I last saw it but a pic of a guy on the back of a Tiger II had one). IMO all the countries that participated in WWII made some excellent weapons, and some that were, well, just crap.

One thing that I notice no one brings up here is that war winning weaponry is more than just the characteristics of the weapon, it is also the ability to mass-produce that weapon more quickly and efficiently than your enemy, and for it to be able to stand up to intense conditions, something which I think any Russian military man would agree with full heartedly.
For example, take the MP-38 or 40 compared to the Russian PPsh41. On the outside, the German weapon appears "better" due to its finer finish, remarkable accuracy and controlibility, as compared to the PPsh41 which is crudely manufactured, in-accurate, and generally not as impressive technically. HOWEVER, the PPsh did not "freeze up" in the cold or mud, due to more loosely fitted parts, had a much more sturdy wooden stock instead of a flimsy folding wire one (the wood did also not transfer cold as much, making it easier to tote around in the winter), had a larger trigger guard and MUCH simper magazine catch both enabling easy operation with mits, a more powerful cartridge which could be used with a 70 rd. drum, and was easier on the wartime economy (ex: the simple 'square' heat shield also served as a muzzle brake and flash suppressor on the end, the barrel was made ingeniously by cutting a spare Nagant barrel in two, thus two PPsh barrels could be fashioned out of one rifle barrel, and the internal "blowback" mechanism was little more than a tube with a firing pin and its base fitted to a spring, much like the superlative Sten). So, in ACTUAL WAR CONDITIONS, the Russian , not the German was better suited, because it was easieir and more efficient on a wartime economy and could function in even the most extreme circumstnaces. This is evidenced by large numbers of captured PPsh's used by German troops, and also by teh development in Germany of a conversion kit for the PPsh so that it could fire 9mm Parrebelum. This same argument could be extended to modern Russian weapons such as the AK series.

Other German weapons did not actually owe their effectiveness purely to German in design. Take that 75mm gun on the Panther you mention. This is essentially the same gun that was fitted on their PzIV tanks at the beginning of Barbarossa, albeit with a shorter length (24 calibers as compared to the 70 caliber version on the Panther). The Russians, on the other hand, already had a longer barreled 76mm gun (30 and then shortly later 42 caliber)fitted to their T-34 tank (the same used in their standard ZIS 76 duel arty/AT gun piece, another effecient weapon) Thus, the T-34 could hit and knock out PzIV's at ranges outside the effective limits of the german gun. The Germans had to desperately increase the lenght of the gun, first to 43, then 48, and finally to 70 calibers long, whereas the Russians had already introduced high velocity barrels early on. As for the superb MG-42 and preceding 34, while both excellent weapons in their own right, they derived much of the design for the basic operation and internal mechanisms, as well as the quick-change barrel concept, from the Czech ZB-30 (a weapon which you will often see in war-time pics, issued to rear-echelon units not able to procur the 42 or 34, it looks slightly like a 34, w/ventilated sleeve and a top-fed magazine), which also was largely responsible for the developement of the Britich Bren gun.

The Germans also had their fair share of less-than desirable weapons. One that stands out is the FG-42, especially the originall model. As issued, it was uncomfortatble and difficult to fire, both because of its awkward grip arrangement and heavy recoil. The weapon was too light weight to be used in the support role, and yet fired too powerful of ammunition to serve as an assault rifle effectively, so in the end it was just a semi auto rifle with a useless full-auto capabiltiy.

Oh yes, Ive read also about the Mg-42 conversion program. According to several sorces, the conversion SHOULD have worked (how hard could it have been?), but due to a misunderstanding with the engineers regarding breech pressure tolerances, the weapon jammed repeatedly and could not even begin to perform the basic tests required at the proving grounds. Rather than these being addressed, interests who had contracts for producing their own weapons in mind basically said "no-can-do" and put a lid on the program before letting them try again. Thus, they got what they wanted, a contract to develop a new weapon, the M-60, which in almost all respects was inferior (over heating, no quick change barrel capability, excessively heavy, easily jammed feeding mechanism due to underpowered feed claw, and low tolerances to sand and mud).

[This message was edited by pcisbest on Mon March 08 2004 at 01:16 PM.]